Skip to content


Maratib Ali Vs. Abdul Hakim and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All567
AppellantMaratib Ali
RespondentAbdul Hakim and ors.
Excerpt:
pre-emption - contract--muhammadan law--custom--wajib-ul-arz--special appeal. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment.....order1. the second plea is overruled because it was admitted that the existence of the right of pre-emption was entered in the record as a matter of agreement and not of custom, and on these averments the suit has been tried and the issues fully investigated; but the validity of the first plea must be admitted. the claim based on the wajib-ul-arz did not exclude a claim under muhammadan law. the lower appellate court must determine whether the appellant had, under the muhammadan law, the right of pre-emption, and secondly, if he had the right, whether he duly performed the conditions which, under the muhammadan law, are essential to the validity of the right, namely, the immediate expression of his intention to purchase an immediate demand.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The second plea is overruled because it was admitted that the existence of the right of pre-emption was entered in the record as a matter of agreement and not of custom, and on these averments the suit has been tried and the issues fully investigated; but the validity of the first plea must be admitted. The claim based on the wajib-ul-arz did not exclude a claim under Muhammadan law. The lower Appellate Court must determine whether the appellant had, under the Muhammadan law, the right of pre-emption, and secondly, if he had the right, whether he duly performed the conditions which, under the Muhammadan law, are essential to the validity of the right, namely, the immediate expression of his intention to purchase an immediate demand.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //